Democrats are the party of the working man, or so we're told. This talking point, as false as it is, has been regurgitated by teachers, parents, and politicians over the country constantly for years now. Big business and rich people support Republicans, they say. What's the truth? The exact opposite:

For the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new "party of the rich". More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.

The article goes on to explain that more than half of the wealthiest households in the country are concentrated in states where Dems control both Senate seats. California, New York, and Massachusetts, just to name a few of the 18 states. Over half the rich households in 18 blue states? That doesn't seem right. What about some individual districts?

This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.

The next rung of House leadership shows the same pattern. Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer's district is home to the booming suburban communities between Washington, DC, and Annapolis. It boasts almost 19,000 wealthy households and a median income topping $62,000. Mr Hoyer's counterpart, minority whip Roy Blunt, hails from a rural Missouri district that has only 5,200 wealthy households and whose median income is only $33,000.

Pelosi and Boehner do indeed come from different worlds. Rural Ohio and San Francisco are polar opposites, which might explain how they ended up with opposite political beliefs. Rural Missouri and Suburban Maryland? Also totally different districts. And they say Republicans are the party of the rich and affluent...

You might say though, that this trend is more geographic than political. It's an Coast vs. Mainland thing. That's wrong too. What about red states?

Democratic politicians prosper in areas of concentrated wealth even in staunchly Republican states such as Georgia, Kansas and Utah. Liberal congressman John Lewis represents more than 27,500 high-income households in his Atlanta district. The trend achieves perfect symmetry in Iowa. There, the three wealthiest districts send Democrats to Washington; the two poorest are safe Republican seats.

Which party is the party of the rich and the powerful? Which party's constituency is full of millionaires like Gates, Kerry, and Streisand? The talking point about rich vs. poor needs to die, along with all the false talking points about class warfare.